THE DEFENCE
OF THE ANSWER TO
THE ADMONITION

Contents

Tract 20. Of the Authority of the civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical matters.

×

Tract. 20. Of the Authority of the civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical matters.

[The prince’s right in ecclesiastical matters.]

The First Division.

Admonition (T. Cartwright et al.).

And to these three jointly, that is, the ministers, seniors, and deacons, is the whole regiment of the church to be committed.

Answer to the Admonition (J. Whitgift.).

This is only by you set down without proof; therefore I will hear your reasons before I make you answer. In the meantime, I pray you, what authority in these matters do you give to the civil magistrate? [Where is the prince’s authority?] Methink I hear you whisper that the prince hath no authority in ecclesiastical matters: I know it is a received opinion among some of you, and therein you shake hands also with the papists and anabaptists.

Reply to the Answer (T. Cartwright.).

Unto all the rest, until the end of the first part of the Admonition, I have answered already; yet there is a point or two which I must touch, whereof the first is in page 126, where he would bear men in hand that the authors of the Admonition, and some other of their mind, would shut out the civil magistrate and the prince from all authority in ecclesiastical matters. Which surmise although I see it is not so much because either he knoweth or suspecteth any such thing, as because he meaneth hereby to lay a bait to entrap withal, thinking that, [Note these speeches.] where he maketh no conscience to give he careth not what authority to princes, we will be loth to give more than the word of God will permit; whereby he hopeth to draw us into displeasure with the prince; yet, for because he shall understand we nourish no opinions secretly, which we are ashamed to declare openly, and for that we doubt not of the equity of the prince in this part, which knoweth that, although her authority be the greatest in the earth, yet it is not infinite, but it is limited by the word of God, and of whom we are persuaded that, as her majesty knoweth, so she will not unwillingly hear the truth in this behalf-these things, I say, being considered, I answer in the name of the authors of the Admonition, and those some other which you speak of, that the prince and civil magistrate hath to see that the laws of God, [What, no more but to see them executed? How differeth this from papists?] touching his worship, and touching all matters and orders of the church, be executed and duly observed, and to see that every ecclesiastical person do that office whereunto he is appointed, and to punish those which fail in their office accordingly. As for the making of the orders and ceremonies of the church [The prince spoiled of authority to make ecclesiastical orders.], they do (where there is a constituted and ordered church) pertain unto the ministers of the church, and to the ecclesiastical governors; and that, as they meddle not with the making of civil laws, and laws for the commonwealth, so the civil magistrate hath not to ordain ceremonies pertaining to the church; but, if those to whom that doth appertain make any orders not meet, the magistrate may and ought to hinder them, and drive them to better, forsomuch as the civil magistrate hath this charge to see that nothing be done against the glory of God in his dominion.

Defence of the Answer (J. Whitgift.)

[The Admonitors and T.C. join with the papists against the queen’s supremacy in matters ecclesiastical.] The words of the Admonition, pag. 126, be these: “And to these three jointly, that is, the ministers, seniors, and deacons, is the whole regiment of the church to be committed.” Wherefore they spoil the civil magistrate of all government in ecclesiastical matters; for, if the “whole government of the church is to be committed to ministers, seniors, and deacons,” what authority remaineth to the civil magistrate in the government of it? Agreeable to this disobedient spirit and erroneous and papistical doctrine is that in the Second Admonition, fol. 8. and 9; where the authors of that book take from the civil magistrate all supremacy in ecclesiastical matters, and, by evident circumstances, call his authority used in those things usurped. Pag. 57, they say, “only mere civil laws are to be made.” [The opinion of the Repliers concerning the prince’s authority.] And here in this place T. C. in express, words taketh from the civil magistrate, “all authority of making and appointing orders and ceremonies of the church,” and giveth the same only to “ministers and ecclesiastical governors:” he maketh it the prince’s duty “to see those laws executed which these ecclesiastical governors shall appoint and prescribe;” [Sect. 3.] and in his preface he saith that “civil persons may not handle ecclesiastical matters;” and, pag. 35. and 145, [Pag. 35, about the midst. Pag. 145, sect. 1.] that “the civil magistrate may not be the head of the church in that commonwealth whereof he is the head” (whereby as I suppose he meaneth supreme governor); and that “the church may be established without him.” Pag. 54, [Pag. 54, sect. 1.] he denieth that “the magistrate ought to prescribe what kind of apparel ministers should wear.” In divers places he maketh such a distinction betwixt the church of Christ and a christian commonwealth that hath a christian magistrate, as he would do betwixt the church and a heathenish commonwealth that hath a persecuting and an unbelieving magistrate, and separateth the commonwealth of England as far from the church of England, as he can do the commonwealth of Turcia from the church of Christ in Turcia. All this I have noted to this end, that the good subject, and those that be careful for the preservation of the state of this realm, and the lawful authority of her majesty, may the better consider and beware of this doctrine; the which unless I prove to be the self-same with the papists’ in substance, let me sustain that punishment that is due unto them whom I burden and charge with forgetfulness of duty in this point.

Saunders, [Saunders and the Replier agree. Saunders.] in that traitorous book of his, writeth thus: “That hath deceived many, because they see kings to be Christians, and to rule over Christians; for they know not, or at the least they will not know, what difference there is, whether thou rule over a Christian in that he is a Christian, or in that he is a man. For a king ruleth over christian men, but not because they be Christians, but because they be men; and, because bishops be men, in that respect he ruleth also over them. &c.” And T. C. in his Reply, pag. 35, [Pag. 35, in the midst.] writeth on this manner, saying that “the godly magistrate is the head of the commonwealth, but not of the church,” meaning that particular church contained in the commonwealth whereof he is governor; and in the same page he saith that “the christian magistrate is but only a member of that particular church.” And, pag. 145, [Pag. 145, sect. 1.] he saith that “the prince may well be monarch immediately between God and the commonwealth, and not between God and the church, in that commonwealth or any singular member in the church;” and in this place he would have “the civil magistrate no more to intermeddle with making ecclesiastical laws and orders, than the ecclesiastical minister should deal with civil.” Divers such nips and pinches he hath at the civil magistrate, speaking no otherwise of him than of a Turk or a Jew, and giving him no more authority in the church of Christ and over Christians, than if he were the great Turk, or wicked Nero. But I answer them both with the words of M. Musculus, in his Common-places, Titu, de Magistratu: “Let ethnics and infidels, which live not in the unity of truth, but in the confusion of error, have their divers laws and magistrates, some profane and some holy, whose whole life is profane, whose religion is but ecclesiastical superstition and in the temple only. Christian people are altogether holy, and dedicated to the name of Christ, not in temples only and ecclesiastical rites, but in their whole life, in every place, at all times, in all things, in all deeds and studies; that, according to the admonition of the apostle, 1 Corinthians 10, whether he eat or drink, or whatsoever he doth, all may be done to the glory of God; and Colossians 3, whatsoever he doth in word or in deed, he do it in the name of the Lord &c. Wherefore that distinction of ecclesiastical and profane laws hath no place in it; because there is nothing in it that is profane, seeing it is a people holy to the Lord God; and the magistrate is holy and not profane: his authority is holy, his laws are holy, his sword is holy, a revenger of the wicked and ungodly, whereby he serveth the Lord being the chief law-maker and judge: our members are the members of Christ, and our bodies are the bodies of the Holy Ghost: we are willed to glorify God not in our spirit only, but in our body also, 1 Corinthians 6. Therefore this be far from the church of Christ, that it should be partly holy, and partly profane, holy before, and profane behind, like unto an idol which sheweth beautiful before, and behind is full of filth and spiders’ webs.”

[What authority papists give to the prince in ecclesiastical matters.] Again, the papists give to the christian magistrate in ecclesiastical matters potestatem facti, and not juris; that is, to see those laws executed and put in practice that the pope and his clergy shall make, and to be as it were their executioner, but not to make any laws or orders in ecclesiastical matters; for so writeth Saunders in his book before named, fol. 64: [Saunders.] “Although I do not deny but that the knowledge of a fact that belongeth to the ecclesiastical law may be committed to kings and magistrates, and before the ecclesiastical cause be determined the king may use his authority to this end, that there may be some quiet place prepared where the bishops shall consult, and that the bishops be called to the same place at a certain day, and that, in the mean time, while the matter is in determining, common peace may be preserved even among the priests themselves; to conclude, after the cause be determined and judged by the priests, the king may punish him with the sword (which he carrieth not in vain), or by some other corporal punishment, which shall refuse to obey the sentence of the priests. Therefore we do not deny but that kings have something to do, both before, and at, and after, the judgements of the bishops; but in the office of judging they have no more to do than other private persons; for they may well give counsel, and declare what they think, but they may not determine or define what God’s laws or the ecclesiastical law doth require.” [Potestas facti, not juris, ascribed to the magistrates.] And doth not T. C. in this place affirm the same? Only herein he seemeth something to differ, that, if the ecclesiastical governors “shall make any orders unmeet, the magistrate may drive them to better.” But what right in if they say they be meet, and will stand to it; as you do now in this fond platform? Will they not cry out upon the magistrate, and say that he is a persecutor, a maintainer of an unlawful authority, and of that which is against the glory of God, if he withstand them? As the authors of the Second Admonition [2 Admonit. pag. 60.] do in plain terms, saying, “For, though the orders be, and ought to be drawn out of the book of God, yet it is her majesty that by her princely authority should see every of these things put in practice, and punish those that neglect them, making laws therefore; for the church may keep those orders, but never in peace, except the comfortable and blessed assistance of the states and governors link in to see them in their countries and used; for otherwise the church may and must keep God’s orders, but always in troubles and persecution, which is like to light upon us except a reformation of religion, or a direct proviso for us be made; for surely only this is God’s order, and ought to be used in his church, so that in conscience we are forced to speak for it and to use it, and in conscience and in reverence of God we are forced to speak as we do of that reformation, which we now use, not so much for ought else as to set out the deformities thereof, that we might think upon the amending of them.”

M. Musculus, in the book and title before recited, setteth out this popish opinion touching the authority of the civil magistrate in ecclesiastical matters briefly, but plainly, in these words: [Musculus.] “Those whom they call ecclesiastical persons, and we call them papists, will not commit to the magistrate any further authority in religion, than to be the keeper and revenger of it, and of their ecclesiastical laws, that the ecclesiastical policy may remain immovable; wherefore they deny him to have authority in that he is a magistrate to make or to publish any ecclesiastical laws, because such things pertain to those that do represent the church, whose decrees and constitutions must be maintained and defended by the authority of the magistrate.”

This I thought good to note before I come to answering of his arguments, that all men may understand that I no otherwise charged them in this point than they have well deserved; neither have I as yet detected all that they perversely think of the authority of the civil magistrate: one thing, I pray you, mark, that here is one note practised that I have ascribed to the anabaptists, in my Answer to the Admonition; for there I shew that the anabaptists accuse the true ministers of the gospel for attributing (as they say) too much to the civil magistrate: the same doth T. C. charge me with in this place. But I will now come to his arguments.

The Second Division.

Reply to the Answer (T. Cartwright.)

[You allege the reasons of the papists to the same purpose with them.] This distinction if M. Doctor knoweth not nor hath not heard of, let him look in the second book of the Chronicles, in the 19th chapter and in the 8th and 11th verses, [2 Chronicles 19v8, 11.] he shall see that there purpose were a number appointed for the matters of the Lord which were priests and Levites, and there were other also appointed for the king’s affairs, and for matters of the commonwealth, amongst which were the Levites; which, being more in number than could be applied to the use of the church, were set over civil causes, being therefore most fit, for that they were best learned in the laws of God, which were the politic laws of that country.

There he may learn, if it please him, that the making of orders and giving of judgements in civil and ecclesiastical, in commonwealth and church-matters, pertained unto divers persons; which distinction the writer to the Hebrews doth note [Hebrews 5v1.] when he saith that the the priest was “ordained in things pertaining to God.” [This is unadvisedly alleged.]

Defence of the Answer (J. Whitgift.)

[The Replier useth the same distinction and reasons with the papists.] Yes, I both know this distinction, and have heard of it, for I have read it in the books of the papists; as I have same shewed before: I have heard also this same place of 2 Chronicles 19 alleged to confirm it; for Saunders, in his book before named, doth use it to the same end and purpose that you do, that is, to prove the civil magistrate to have no authority in making ecclesiastical laws and orders: his words be these: [Saunders, Li. ii. cap. 1. fol. 57.] “Likewise Josaphat, king of Judah, distinguishing both the powers, said to the Levites and priests: Amarias the priest and your bishop shall govern in those things which pertain to God; but Zabadias &c. Behold something pertained to the bishop, other somethings to the office of a king.” The same place also doth Harding use to the self-same end, against my lord of Salisbury, fol. 118. of the Defence of the Apology of the Church of England; from whom I believe you have borrowed it. Do I not say truly that you jump with the papists? Do you not both conspire against the civil magistrate? And are you not content to use their very words and reasons? Great ado there is against me, because I use a place of Cyprian for the authority of an archbishop over his provinces, which the papists abuse for the authority of the pope over all Christendom; and here you use the reason not only of papists, but of traitors, to the same end with them, that is, against that lawful jurisdiction which we have given to our prince, and which hath hitherto been maintained both by preaching and by burning.

[The place of the Replier against himself.] But, to let this rest in the consideration of the reader, I will in few words declare that this place maketh flat against you; for who placed those Levites and priests in Jerusalem for the judgement and cause of the Lord? Or who prescribed unto them what they should do? Or who gave to them that authority? Did not Jehosaphat? The text is plain. Jehosaphat had chief authority and government both in things pertaining to God, and in things pertaining to the commonwealth; but, for better execution of them, the one he did commit to be executed by Amaria the priest, the other by Zabadiah a ruler of the house of Judah: even as the queen’s majesty, being supreme governor in all causes, both ecclesiastical and temporal, committeth the hearing and judging of ecclesiastical matters to the archbishops and bishops, and temporal matters to the lord chancellor and other judges; neither can you any more conclude that Jehosaphat had no authority in ecclesiastical causes, because he made Amarias the priest judge in the same, than you can that he had nothing to do in temporal affairs, because he appointed also Zabadiah to hear and determine them. For, if this reason be good, the queen of England hath nothing to do with ecclesiastical matters, because she hath made the archbishops and bishops judges in them, then is this as good, her majesty hath no authority in civil matters, because she hath committed the same to the lord chancellor and other judges. Thus you see how both the papists and you are deceived in one and the self-same reason.

[Levites, being ecclesiastical persons, had to do in civil matters.] I will but note by the way, that the Levites, being ecclesiastical persons, had to do in civil matters; as the words of the text verse 11 most manifestly declare: as for your shift of the number of them “being more than could be applied to the use of the church,” it is but your own, and therefore too simple to answer so plain and direct a place of the scripture.

That in the fifth to the Hebrews is far from the purpose; for the apostle in the same sentence declareth what those “things pertaining to God” be, “even to offer both gifts and sacrifices for him:” I think you do not so maliciously report of us as the papists do, that we give to the prince power to minister the sacraments, and to preach the word: if you do not, this place can by no means serve your turn.

The Third Division.

Reply to the Answer (T. Cartwright.)

This might M. Doctor have learned by that which the noble emperor Constantine attributeth to the fathers of the Nicene council, [Euseb. Lib. ii. de Vita Const. Epi.] and to the ecclesiastical persons there gathered; which he doth also permit the bishops, elders, and deacons of the churches to do [ad Euseb.], either by correcting, or adding, or making new if need be; [Sozom. Lib. i. cap. 17.] and by the continual practice of the church in the time of christian emperors, [A great oversight.] which always permitted unto the ministers assembled in councils as well the determination of controversies which rose, as the making or the abolishing of needful or hurtful ceremonies, as the case required; also by the emperor’s epistle in the first action of the council of Constantinople [2. Tom. Con.], where by the epistle of the emperor it appeareth that it was the manner of the emperors to confirm the ordinances which were made by the ministers, and to see them kept.

Defence of the Answer (J. Whitgift.)

[Euseb. Lib. I. de Vita Const. Conctantinus’ rule in eclesiastical matters.] I learn in Eusebius, Lib. i. de Vita Constan., that Constantinus is called “as it were a general bishop, appointed of God,” that he also called synods and placed the moderator in them: I learn, in that second book, that he made laws and constitutions [Lib. II.] “pertaining to holiness towards God, and to the appointing of meet things for the churches of God; that there should be no images worshipped, none erected and set up, no enchantments used or soothsayings.” And I learn, in that same epistle by you quoted [Epist. ad Euseb.], that Constantinus prescribed to Eusebius what he should do [A gross oversight of T.C.], and what he should will others to do, in building and repairing of churches, or enlarging of them; neither is there mention made of any other laws or constitutions in that epistle; and surely I believe that those words, which Constantinus speaketh to Eusebius of building, or repairing, or enlarging churches built of stone, you understand of making, restoring, or enlarging of ecclesiastical orders and laws, which if you do (as your words plainly signify), then understand you not the place, abuse your reader, and cast away an argument. For Constantinus’ words to Eusebius be these: [Lib. 11. Eus. de Vita Constan. Epist. ad Eus.] “How hitherto, by that wicked sentence and tyranny, persecuting the ministers of our Saviour, the buildings of the churches are decayed and weakened, through negligence, or sold and made vile, for fear of imminent danger, I know and am fully persuaded; but now, liberty being restored, and that dragon, through the providence of God and our ministry, banished from the government of the commonwealth, I think God’s power is made manifest to all, and that those, which have fallen into certain sins, either for fear or through unbelief, and now know the truth, will return again to the true and right way of life; [Eusebius governor of more churches than one.] therefore admonish all churches which thou dost govern, or any other churches under the government of other bishops, priests, or deacons, that they be diligent about the building of their churches, and that they either repair such as stand still, or enlarge them, or, if necessity require, build them new; and thou thyself, or other for thee, may require of the governors and magistrates in the provinces those things that be necessary.” It is plain that Constantine in these words speaketh only of material churches; and therefore you are greatly deceived. But, if it were as you say, do you not see how it maketh against yourself? [The place against himself.] For what doth more plainly appear in that you say, “he permitteth this unto the bishops, &c.,” than that the authority was in him, and they were but his vicegerents?
[Christian princes have exercised supreme authority in ecclesiastical cases.] The continual practice of christian churches (in the time exercised of christian magistrates), before the usurpation of the bishop of Rome, hath been to give to christian princes supreme authority in making ecclesiastical orders and laws, yea, and that which is more, in deciding of matters of religion, even in the chief and principal points. And that book and chapter of Sozomen by you quoted declareth the same [Sozomenus, Lib. I. cap. 17.]. For the bishops that came to the council of Nicaea committed the hearing and determining of their controversies to the emperor; which argueth that it was then a common and undoubted opinion received among them, that the emperor had authority to judge in their causes; and, although the emperor of modesty refused so to do, saying that “it was not meet for them so to use themselves, that they should be judged of other,” yet I am sure you will not make this a rule to except the clergy from the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate, unless you will take hold with the pope and say, “We must judge all, and be judged of none.” This modesty in Constantinus (in refusing to hear the matters in controversy among the bishops) excepted, there is nothing in that first book and 17th chapter of Sozomen that can by any means serve your turn.

If you say that he would not determine anything against Arius’ heresy, but committed the same to the synod and council of Nicaea, I answer that therein he nothing at all abridged his authority, but shewed his wisdom and godly advice of the care. [A wise prince will take the advice of the learned in discussing of weighty matters.] For it is the part of a wise and godly prince to have such weighty matters of doctrine (being in controversy) decreed and determined by such as, for their authority, wisdom, and learning, are most fit to entreat of such matters. But, alas, how doth this argument follow: Constantinus called the council of Nicaea to determine certain matters of religion in controversy; therefore he had no authority to make ecclesiastical orders and laws?

What council of Constantinople was that? If you mean the fifth, being celebrated A.D. 549, in the time of Justinianus, it is a very late testimony for this cause, the bishops of Rome being then in great authority; and yet manifest it is, that no Justinian emperor made more ecclesiastical laws, both concerning matters of order, and also of doctrine, than did the emperor Justinianus; [Justinian made many ecclesiastical laws.] as may be seen in the Code under these titles: De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica: De Sacrosanctis Ecclesiis: De Episcopis et Clericis: De Hæreticis et Manichæis et Samaritanis: Ne sanctum Baptisma iteretur: De Statuis et Imaginibus; and a number such like.

If you mean the sixth council of Constantinople, as it is like you do, then are you without my compass; for that council was A.D. 681; and who will allege any authority of that corrupt time for any such matter in controversy? [Constantinus Pogon. governed the council of Constantinople A.D. 681.] And yet it is certain that Constantinus the emperor did govern that council, and that the bishops on both sides did plead before him at his appointment, himself sitting as moderator; and this was in a matter of faith. But be it as you say (though I can find no such thing in the first action of that council), doth it follow that, because emperors confirmed ordinances that were made in synods and councils, therefore they have no authority to make ecclesiastical laws? Surely I understand not how you can make any such conclusion. For (as I said before) it is a point of great wisdom and singular care to provide that weighty matters in controversy be determined with great deliberation and advice of such as be most skilful in them: but this can be no argument to prove that civil magistrates may make no orders in the church, or ecclesiastical laws; for even those orders and laws which were made in such councils were made by the authority of the emperor; as doth very well appear in the same councils; for, when the matters were concluded in the council of Chalcedon [Conc. Chalced.], the bishops burst out into these voices: “It is a true and a right judgement: long life to the senate: many years to the emperor.” Whereby it appeareth that the chief authority in such councils was given to the emperor, and that he was esteemed as the chief judge; which appeareth also at large in the second book of Evagrius [Evagr. Lib. II. cap. 4.].

The Fourth Division.

Reply to the Answer (T. Cartwright.)

[Another reason of the papists against the authority of the civil magistrate.] The practice of this he might have also most plainly seen in Ambrose, who would by no means suffer that the causes of the churches should be debated in the prince’s consistory or court, [v. Lib. epist. 32.] but would have them handled in the church, by those that had the government of the church; and therefore excuseth himself to the emperor Valentinian for that (being convented to answer of the church-matters unto the civil court) he came not.

Defence of the Answer (J. Whitgift.)

This is another of M. Harding’s reasons against the authority of the civil magistrate in ecclesiastical matters; and he used it against the Apology; [vi. Part. 14. Chap. 5. Division.] but the answer made to the same in the Defence of the Apology, by that reverend father the bishop of Salisbury, is learned and true; the sum whereof is this. [Why Ambrose refused to come at the emperor’s commandment.] The emperor Valentinian, at that time when Ambrose wrote this epistle unto him, was very young; he was not yet baptized, he knew not the principles of Christ’s religion, he was an Arian heretic, he would have thrust out the Christians and placed heretics in their churches, he thought it was lawful for him to do what him listed, &c. For this cause Ambrose refused him to be his judge; so that he did not mislike his authority in causes ecclesiastical, but only his wilful ignorance and his tyranny; for that he knew his judgement was corrupted and not indifferent. And, if you had marked the beginning of his epistle, you might have perceived that he allegeth, for his chief defence and excuse for not appearing, the decree of Theodosius the father of Valentinian; so that, in not coming or appearing at the emperor’s summon, he did but challenge the privilege granted before of godly emperors unto the clergy.

[The ancient fathers have committed the deciding of controversies to emperors.] And it is evident that the learned and ancient fathers have committed the deciding of matters of controversy to emperors; as it appeareth in Athanasius’s second Apology, where he, committing himself and his cause to the emperor, saith thus: [Athanasius, Apol. 2.] “We require that the emperor’s most godly and most religious majesty may have the hearing of the same matter, before whom we may open both our church’s right, and also our own; for we hope that his godliness, understanding our reasons, will never condemn us.”

Likewise St Augustine, Contra Epist. Parme. Lib. i., speaking to the Donatists, saith: [August, contra Epist. Parmen. Lib. I.] “Is it not lawful for the emperor or his deputy to give sentence in a matter of religion? Wherefore then went your ambassadors to the emperor? Why made they him judge of their cause?”

Sozomen, Lib. iv. cap. xvi., saith that [Sozom. Lib. IV. 16.] “the emperor commanded that ten bishops of the east, and ten of the west, chosen by the council, should repair to his court, and open to him the decrees of the council, that he might not only consider whether they were agreed according to the scriptures; but that he might further determine and conclude what were best to be done?”

Socrates, Lib. v. cap. x., [Socrat. Lib. V. cap, 10.] saith that Theodosius the emperor, for the appeasing of contention, commanded an assembly of bishops and best-learned to appear before him, and each part to write a confession of their faith and religion; the which being done, at a day appointed they came to the court and delivered up their writings to the emperor, who, after earnest prayers made, perusing the writings that were delivered, rent in pieces the confessions made by the Arians and Eunomians, and allowed only and received the confession of the catholics.

The practice, therefore, of the authority of princes in ecclesiastical matters, even in deteremining and judging controversies in religion, you might have learned by these examples in Ambrose’s time.

The Fifth Division.

Reply to the Answer (T. Cartwright.)

And by whom can the matters and orders of the church be better ordained than by the ministers of the church? [Another argument of the papists to the same purpose.] And, if that be a good reason of M. Doctor in the 47th page, that the bishops ought therefore to ordain ministers, because they are best able to judge of the learning and ability of those which are the fittest, it is also as good reason that therefore the ministers and governors of the church should appoint and decree of such ceremonies and orders as pertain to the church, for because it is to be supposed that they can best judge of those matters, bestowing their studies that ways, and further best understanding the state of the church, about the which they are wholly occupied.

Defence of the Answer (J. Whitgift.)

[The debating and deciding of matters in religion by bishops doth not derogate from the prince’s authority.] This also is a reason of M. Harding’s in the same cause, but it only proveth that it is most convenient and necessary that bishops and ministers of the church, while they be learned from the and godly, may have the debating and deciding of matters in religion; neither doth this derogate anything from the authority of the prince in the same causes: we see that matters in law are determined by judges and lawyers: so be other civil matters by wise and prudent officers in like manner; and yet is not the authority of the prince thereby abridged; but what if all the ministers of the church or most of them be corrupt and ungodly, as it was in the beginning of the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah, and as it hath oftentimes been, must all be committed to them then also?

No godly princes having godly bishops and ministers of the church will alter or change, determine or appoint anything in matters of religion, without their advice and counsel. But how if there be dissension among them, shall not the prince determine the controversies; as Constantinus, Theodosius, and other godly emperors did? Wherefore the meetness of the priests and bishops doth not take away any authority from godly princes in matters of the church.

The Sixth Division.

Reply to the Answer (T. Cartwright.)

[It is nothing else; as will appear.] And this is not, M. Doctor, “to shake hands with the papists.” For the papists would exempt their priests from the punishment of the civil magistrate; which we do not. And the papists would that, whatsoever the clergy doth determine, that that forthwith should be holden for good, and the prince should be forthwith compelled to maintain, and set forth that, be it good or evil, without further enquiry; but we say that, if there be no lawful ministry to set good orders, as in ruinous decays and overthrows of religion, [Why then more than at other times? Or how prove you this?] that then the prince ought to do it, and, if when there is a lawful ministry it shall agree of any unlawful or unmeet order, that the prince ought to stay that order, and not to suffer it, but to drive them to that which is lawful and meet; and, if this be to shake hands with the papists, then M. Doctor is to blame which hath taught us, once or twice before, that the appointing of ceremonies of the church belongeth unto the church. And yet I know that there is one or two of the later writers that think otherwise; but, as I take no advantage of their authority which think as I do, so I ought not to be prejudiced by those that think otherwise. But, forsomuch as we have M. Doctor yet of this judgement that the church ceremonies should be ordained by the church, I will travail no further in this matter, considering that the practice of this church commonly is to refer these matters unto the ecclesiastical persons: only this is the difference that, where it is done now of one or a few, we desire that it may be done by others also who have interest in that behalf.

Defence of the Answer (J. Whitgift.)

[The papists confess that the prince may punish priests. Harding.] Yes, in good sooth is it; for M. Harding against the Apology confesseth that the civil magistrate may punish with corporal punishment any estate or degree of persons offending either against the first or second table. And Saunders saith, Lib. ii., that [Saunders, Lib. II.] “bishops, in that they be men, be subject to civil magistrates;” and therefore in that point the papists grant as much as you.

Concerning the determination of matters in religion, I know not wherein you differ from them; for, though the prince mislike your determination, yet can he not himself conclude anything, only he may compel you to go to it again, and take better hold; but, if it shall please you to go forward in your determination, or if you cannot agree among yourselves, I see not what authority you have given to the civil magistrate to determine the matter; but for ought that I can espy, if you and your seniors be disposed to be peevish, either must the prince have no religion, or else that which you shall appoint unto him; [The Replier giveth to the prince no more than potestatem facti.] for potestatem facti you give him, that is, you make him your executioner; but potestatem juris you do as fully remove from him as the papists do; for he hath not, as you say, any authority to make orders or laws in ecclesiastical matters.

Saunders saith, and so say all the papists, that he hath auctoritatem promovendi religionem: [Saunders.] “authority to promote religion,” but not constituendi: “to appoint;” and therefore undoubtedly I perceive not wherein you differ in this article from the papists. In the chief point I am sure that you agree fully and flatly with them, and use their arguments, and none other; that is in this, that you take from the civil magistrate omnem potestatem juris in matters and causes ecclesiastical.

[The Replier uttereth strange doctrine without proof, and yet would have all proved by scripture.] And what scripture have you to prove that the civil magistrate’s authority is not as ample and as large in matters of religion, when there is “a lawful ministry, as when there is an unlawful ministry?” Indeed, when he hath the one, he may the more safely use their advice, and follow their counsel, which he neither may nor ought to do when he hath the other; but his authority is all one over them both; and surely I marvel that you will utter such strange assertions so peremptorily without any kind of proof. For you, that would have all things proved by the scriptures, have not in this weighty cause used one text of scripture, but only one borrowed of the papists, and making directly against you.

When I say that “the church hath authority to appoint ceremonies,” I speak generally of all states of the church, as well under persecution as under a christian magistrate, not secluding but including the christian magistrate, as the chief and principal governor of the church committed to him next under God; for I do not speak of a christian magistrate as you and the papists would have me, to wit, as of Julius Cæsar, Alexander, or Nero; but I speak of him as one appointed by God to govern, not only in the commonwealth, but in the church also. [No such difference between a christian commonwealth and the church as is pretended.] Yea, I will go further with you: I make no difference betwixt a christian commonwealth and the church of Christ; wonder you as much at it as you will: I have shewed my reasons before; and you have not as yet used any to the contrary; wherefore, if you think no otherwise of this cause than I have in these words taught you, the civil magistrate shall be much more beholden unto you than he is.

Certainly I know not any of the late writers (one or two excepted) that are of your judgement in this cause; and, were it not that the same is learnedly and fully handled almost of all the late writers, and namely of such as have in our tongue notably and learnedly defended this truth of the prince’s authority in ecclesiastical matters against the English Lovanists, who have especially sought to impeach the same, I would in more ample manner have prosecuted this cause. But, forasmuch as their books are in every man’s hands, it shall be sufficient to refer the reader to my lord of Salisbury’s Defence of the Apology against Master Harding, my lord of Winchester’s answer to Master Fecknam, and Master Nowel’s books against Dorman; in all which this matter is very learnedly and painfully handled.

Admonition (T. Cartwright et al.).

Is a reformation good for France? And can it be evil for England? Is discipline meet for Scotland? And is it unprofitable for this realm? Surely God hath set these examples before your eyes, to encourage you to go forward to a thorough and a speedy reformation. You may not do as heretofore you have done, patch and piece, nay, rather go backward, and never labour or contend to perfection [Hebrews 6v1.]. But altogether remove whole antichrist, both head, body, and branch, and perfectly plant that purity of the word, that simplicity of the sacraments, and that severity of discipline which Christ hath commanded and commended to his church. 

Answer to the Admonition (J. Whitgift.).

Hath there been no reformation in this church of England sithence the queen’s majesty’s reign? What say you to the abolishing of the usurped power of the bishop of Rome? What say you to the banishing of the mass? [Unthankfulness of the Admonitors.] Nay, what say you to the purity of doctrine in all points pertaining to salvation? Is this no reformation with you? O intolerable unthankfulness!

Reply to the Answer (T. Cartwright.).

The other point is in the 138th page; where he most untruly and slanderously chargeth the authors of the Admonition, and maketh wonderful outcries, as though they should deny that there had been any reformation at all sithence the time that the queen’s majesty began to reign, manifestly contrary not only to their meaning, but also to their very words; which appeareth in that they move to a thorough reformation, and to contend, or to labour to perfection, denying only that the reformation which hath been made in her majesty’s days is thorough and perfect. We confess willingly that, next unto the Lord God, every one of us is most deeply bound to her majesty, whom he hath used as an excellent instrument to deliver his church here out of the spiritual Egypt of popery, and the commonwealth also, and the whole land out of the slavery and subjection of strangers, whereunto it was so near. This, I say, we willingly confess before men, and do in our prayers daily give most humble thanks to God therefore.

And, by this humble suit and earnest desire which we have for further reformation, we are so far from unthankfulness unto her majesty, that we thereby desire the heap of her felicity, and the establishment of her royal throne amongst us; which then shall be most sure and unremoved, when our Saviour Christ sitteth wholly and fully, not only in his chair to teach, but also in his throne to rule, not alone in the hearts of every one by his Spirit, but also generally and in the visible government of his church, by those laws of discipline which he hath prescribed.

Defence of the Answer (J. Whitgift.)

[The Admonitors and the Replier mislike our reformation almost wholly.] The words of the Admonition, page 137, be these: “Is a reformation good for France, &c.? And can it be evil for England? Is discipline meet for Scotland, &c.? And is it unprofitable for this realm?” To this I answering say: “Hath there been no reformation in the church of England, since the queen’s majesty’s reign, &c.?” What “wonderful outcries” these be, or how untrue slanders, let the discreet reader judge. Doth not he, that saith, “Is a reformation good for France? And can it be evil for England?” insinuate that there is no reformation in England? In the same place they say that hitherto we have but “patched and pieced, nay, rather gone backward.” Moreover, to what end doth their book tend, but to the defacing of this reformation? What is it that either they or you commend or like in this church? Nay, what is it that you mislike not? For to the sincerity of doctrine, as it appeareth, you have little regard: all things else you utterly cast down; neither the authority of the prince, the ministry, the government of the church, the administration of the sacraments, the ceremonies, the discipline, the form or matter of public prayers, nor almost anything else can please you; and, howsoever now in words you confess that you are “most deeply bound unto her majesty, &c.” [The good they acknowledge of the queen dissembled.] yet both in tongue and in deed divers of you declare that your meaning is nothing less. For why do you then so unorderly, so undoubtedly, so spitefully, publicly and privately, in word and in writing, deface her proceedings, slander her government, deprave the reformation that she hath made, with sects and schisms divide the realm, set dissension among the people, make the papists more stubborn, drive those back that were well-nigh persuaded, thrust a misliking of the state into the hearts of many protestants, encourage her adversaries, separate her faithful subjects one from another, and greatly disquiet herself? But I will not prosecute this matter; only I desire of God most heartily that it would please him to work that mind and affection in you indeed that becometh dutiful subjects and quiet members of the church.

Answer to the Admonition (J. Whitgift.).

[England is not bound to other churches for examples.] England is not bound to the example either of France or Scotland: I would they both were (if it pleased God), touching religion, in that state and condition that England is. I would antichrist were as far from them removed. The Lord make us thankful, and continue this reformation we have, and grant peace to his church, and either convert the hearts of those that be enemies unto it, or remove them.

Reply to the Answer (T. Cartwright.).

And, whereas M. Doctor would bring us into a foolish paradise of ourselves, as though we need not to learn anything at the churches of France and Scotland, he should have understanded that, as we have been unto them in example, and have provoked them to follow us, so the Lord will have us also profit and be provoked by their example, and so be mutual helps one to another, and stir up ourselves with the admonition that our Saviour Christ stirred up his apostles [Matthew 20v16.], that oftentimes those that are first are not forwardest, but are overrun of others that come after. And, whereas he would privily pinch at the reformation there, [A slanderous and malicious untruth.] forsomuch as the Lord hath humbled the one, and exerciseth the other by civil wars and troubles, he should have, instead of rocking us asleep in our security, put us in remembrance of God’s scourges which hang over us, and of God’s great patience that still tarrieth for our repentance; and that, if he have punished that people of his which have suffered so much for the profession of the gospel, and which went with so straight a foot in it, with an universal hazard of their goods and lives, that we shall not escape unless we repent speedily of our coldness and halting in religion, and unwillingness, I will not say to hazard to put our lives in danger, but not to leese some of our wealth and honour, for the obtaining of a thorough reformation of the church, and advancement of the glory of the Lord.

Finally, he would have rather put us in remembrance of the sermon which our Saviour Christ maketh, [Luke 13v2, &c.] where he sheweth that those cities are not always the greatest sinners, or those whom God is most angry with, which have the heaviest judgements executed upon them, but that thereby the Lord calleth us to repentance, otherwise that we shall likewise perish. This had been more fit for our estate to have been said, than to have after a sort insulted upon the afflicted, and daubed up our eyes, that we should not see our misery and our nakedness. [God root out of you this malicious spirit, which delighteth in slanders.]

Defence of the Answer (J. Whitgift.)

I have said truly that we are not bound to their examples: I do not deny but that examples may be followed, and one ought to follow another in that which is good and convenient. [No church may challenge to be a pattern necessary to be followed.] But I have shewed before, that one church is not bound of necessity in all things to follow another: only the church of Rome is so arrogant and proud as to challenge that prerogative.

I have great cause to expostulate with you for this your unchristian, unbrotherly, and most unjust handling of me. For where or in what words do I “pinch at their reformation?” Wherein do I use any “insultation upon the afflicted,” and against them? Is this to pinch at them, or to insult against them, to wish that touching religion they were in that state and condition that England is ? To wish that unto them that they groan for themselves? Surely flesh and blood will hardly suffer me to put up this injury; but I am taught patience, I thank God; and the Lord forgive you, and root out that root of bitterness that is so deep in your heart.

Admonition (T. Cartwright et al.).

And here to end, we desire all to suppose that we have not attempted this enterprise for vain-glory, gain, preferment, or any other worldly respect.

Answer to the Admonition (J. Whitgift.).

I would to God you were as free from vain-glory, ambition, and malices, and other sinister affections, as you would seem to be; but no indifferent man reading your book will so think of you; for, besides the opprobrious and unseemly terms you use towards your superiors, your Admonition smelleth altogether of popularity and vain-glory.

Admonition (T. Cartwright et al.).

Neither yet judging ourselves so exactly to have set out the state of the church reformed as that nothing more could be added, or a more perfect form and order drawn; for that were great presumption to arrogate so much unto ourselves, seeing that, as we are but weak and simple souls, so God hath raised up men of profound judgement and notable learning.

Answer to the Admonition (J. Whitgift.).

And yet in the beginning of your book you call it “a true platform of a church reformed;” and I dare say you think it to be as perfect a form of a church as all the best-learned and godliest men in the world could frame; for it is well known that men of your disposition think commonly as well of themselves as they do of any man else, and better too. But we grant unto you, that you are so far from setting down a perfect state of a church reformed, that you may rather be called confounders and deformers, than builders and reformers.

Admonition (T. Cartwright et al.).

But thereby to declare our good-wills towards the setting forth of God’s glory, and the building up of his church, accounting this as it were but an entrance into further matter, hoping that our God, who hath begun in us this good work, will not only in time hereafter make us strong and able to go forward therein [Philippians 1v6.], but also move others, upon whom he hath bestowed greater measure of his gifts and graces, to labour more thoroughly and fully in the same.

Answer to the Admonition (J. Whitgift.).

God grant that you may become builders, and not destroyers: [Suspected opinions behind.] I think indeed you have but “begun:” I know there is other opinions among you, which be not yet commonly known; and truly I doubt that you will never end, but from time to time coin new devices to trouble the church, until you have brought that heavy plague of God upon us, which the like kind of men through their schisms and heresies have brought upon all those places almost where any of the apostles preached, [Domestical dissension forerunner of destruction.] and where the gospel was first planted; and commonly before ruin and destruction cometh inward discord and domestical dissension.

The Lord make us thankful for the purity of his gospel that we by his mercy enjoy: the Lord root out schisms and factions from among us, and either convert or confound the authors of them: the Lord of his singular goodness continue our gracious queen Elizabeth unto us, and give us faithful and obedient hearts to his word, and to her majesty! Amen.

Reply to the Answer (T. Cartwright.).

In all the rest M. Doctor hath nothing but words of reproach against the authors of the Admonition, and calling still, as his manner is, for more punishment for them; which I will not bestow the answer of.

Defence of the Answer (J. Whitgift.)

And to this end have I here set my words down, that the reader may understand what words of reproach those be that you charge me with; but, seeing it will not please you to bestow the answer of them, I shall also be content to spare so much labour.

Admonition (T. Cartwright et al.).

Whereas immediately after the last parliament holden at Westminster, begun in A.D. 1570, and ended A.D. 1571, the ministers of God’s holy word and sacraments were called before her majesty’s high commissioners, and enforced to subscribe unto the articles, if they would keep their places and livings; and some for refusing to subscribe were unbrotherly and uncharitably entreated, and from their offices and places removed; may it please therefore this honourable and high court of parliament, in consideration of the premises, to take a view of such causes as then did withhold, and now doth, the foresaid ministers from subscribing and consenting unto those foresaid articles, by way of purgation to discharge themselves of all disobedience towards the church of God and their sovereign, and by way of most humble entreaty for the removing away and utter abolishing of all such corruptions and abuses as withheld them; through which this long time brethren have been at unnatural war and strife among themselves, to the hinderance of the gospel, to the joy of the wicked, and to the grief and dismay of all those that profess christian religion, and labour to attain christian reformation.

Answer to the Admonition (J. Whitgift.).

You complain much of unbrotherly and uncharitable entreating of you, of removing you from your offices and places. [Complaint of persecution without cause.] Surely in this point I must compare you to certain heretics that were in Augustine’s time, who, most bitterly by sundry means afflicting and molesting the true ministers of the church, yet for all that cried out that they were extremely dealt with, and cruelly persecuted by them; or else unto a shrewd and ungracious wife, which, beating her husband, by her clamorous complaints maketh her neighbours believe that her husband beateth her; or to him that is mentioned in Erasmus’ Colloquies, that did steal and run away with the priest’s purse, and yet cried always as he ran, Stay the thief, stay the thief; and thus crying escaped, and yet he was the thief himself. You are as gently entreated as may be, no kind of brotherly persuasion omitted towards you, most of you as yet keep your livings, though some one or two be displaced, you are offered all kind of friendliness, if you could be content to conform yourselves, yea, but to be quiet and hold your peace. [Persecution of the tongue.] You, on the contrary side, most unchristianly and most unbrotherly, both publicly and privately, rail on those that shew this humanity towards you, slander them by all means you can, and most untruly report of them, seeking by all means their discredit. Again, they, as their allegiance to the prince and duty to laws requireth, yea, and as some of them by oath are bound, do execute that discipline which the prince, the law, and their oath requireth; [Disobedience.] you, contrary to all obedience, duty, and oath, openly violate and break those laws, orders, and statutes, which you ought to obey, and to the which some of you by oath is bound. [A token of a good conscience.] If your doings proceed indeed from a good conscience, then leave that living and place which bindeth you to those things that be against your conscience; for why should you strive, with the disquietness both of yourselves and others, to keep that living which by law you cannot, except you offend against your conscience? Or what honesty is there to swear to statutes and laws, and, when you have so done, contrary to your oath to break them, and yet still to remain under them, and enjoy that place which requireth obedience and subjection to them? For my part, I think it much better, by removing you from your livings, to offend you, than, by suffering you to enjoy them, to offend the prince, the law, conscience, and God. And before God I speak it, if I were persuaded as you seem to be, I would rather quietly forsake all the livings I have, than be an occasion of strife and contention in the church, and a cause of stumbling to the weak, and rejoicing to the wicked. I know God would provide for me, if I did it bona conscientia: [“of good conscience and unfained zeal”.] yea, surely I would rather die than be the author of schisms, a disturber of the common peace and quietness of the church and state. [Every church hath a determinate order of ceremonies.] There is no reformed church that I can hear tell of but it hath a certain prescript and determinate order, as well touching ceremonies and discipline as doctrine, to the which all those are constrained to give their consent that will live under the protection of it; and why then may not this church of England have so in like manner? Is it meet that every man should have his own fancy, or live as him list? Truly I know not whereunto these your doings can tend, but either to anabaptism, or to mere confusion. But now to the reasons that move you not to subscribe to those articles ministered unto you by her majesty’s high commissioners.

Reply to the Answer (T. Cartwright.).

Sed etiam quodam in loco facetus esse voluisti. Deus bone, quam te illud non decet. Here M. Doctor was disposed to make himself and his reader merry; but it is with the bagpipe or country mirth, not with the harp or lute, which the learned were wont to handle. For he hath packed up together the old tale of the curst wife, and of the thief that took away the priest’s purse, very familiar and homely gear. It might peradventure make M. Doctor hop about the house; but the learned and the wise cannot dance by this instrument.

It pleaseth M. Doctor to compare those which be put out of their livings without just cause to heretics, curst wives, and to thieves; but all men do understand how rightly. What his troubles be within, and in his conscience, the Lord God and he knoweth best; but as for the outward persecution which he suffereth, it is not such as he need thus to stoop, and I to groan, and to blow underneath it, as though he had some great burden upon his shoulders. And, if he complain of the persecution of the tongue, to let pass his immoderate heat of speech, which he useth with those that he hath to do withal, the tongue which is more intemperate than his is in all his book shall hardly be found.

Defence of the Answer (J. Whitgift.)

And I thank God, I can be merry with “the bagpipe:” I am neither ashamed of the instrument, nor of “the country.” But what divinity call you this? Alack, poor spite at the bagpipe. Surely you do me a pleasure when you tell me of it. You have omitted nothing that by any means might serve you for a jest. O great gravity, &c. But let us leave puerilia pueris.

I know none of you “put from your livings without most just cause:” if there be any injuried that ways, God be thanked, they may find justice. My quietness within my conscience (I most humbly thank my God therefore) doth mitigate the heat of the slanderous generation, and maketh me more willing to deal against that sect that cannot be maintained without such kind of uncharitable and slanderous dealing. I remember what Cyprian saith to Cornelius, Epist. Lib. i.: [Cyprian.] “Ecclesiastical discipline is not therefore to be left off, nor the severity that becometh a priest to be slackened, because we are reviled and evil spoken of, &c.” And again; “The opprobrious speeches of the wicked ought not to move us so that we decline from the right way, and the sure rule; seeing that the apostle instructeth us, saying, “If I should please men, I were not the servant of Christ.” If “the heat of my tongue be immoderate,” what shall be said of yours? But this kind of dealing is nothing meet for us. Wherefore, if you continue in this vein, you shall have the best game for me.

Reply to the Answer (T. Cartwright.).

And, although it be unreasonable enough that he should not give men leave to complain of their troubles, when he glorieth in troubling them, yet that of all is most untolerable, that, besides the injury which he doth them, he is angry that they will not lay hands of themselves, by casting themselves out of their livings, or ever they be cast out by him. Tully maketh mention of one C. Fimbria which, when he had caused Q. Scaevola, a singular man, to be wounded, and saw that he died not of it, convented him before the judges, and, being asked what he had to accuse him of, answered for that he did not suffer the whole weapon wherewith he was stricken to enter into his body; even so M. Doctor contenteth not himself only to do injuries unto men, but accuseth them also, that they will not do it unto themselves, or that they would not willingly suffer his weapons enter so far as he would have them.

Defence of the Answer (J. Whitgift.)

I trust there is not one that can justly say I have without great cause molested him: if there be any such, or whom I have by any means injuried, I refuse not to answer, and to satisfy him; yea, it is my desire that it may come to the trial: so shall many slanderous speeches, together with the authors of them, be found as they are.

[C. Fimbria.] C. Fimbria was a very proud seditious Roman, and one that disquieted the state of the commonwealth, and greatly envied his superiors. [Q. Scævola.] was a wise and a prudent Q. Scævola senator, one that lived in authority, and observed laws himself, and caused the same to be observed by other. Scævola surely you cannot be; for you are neither of that credit for wisdom, nor of that authority in the commonwealth, nor so diligent an observer of good orders and laws: your conditions come nearer to Fimbria: I will not conclude: you shall do it yourself.

If I have done you any injury, prosecute it to the uttermost, and spare not: I never entreated you to hold your peace. The greatest injury that I acknowledge myself guilty of is unto the college, that I so long suffered you, contrary to your express oath, to usurp a place therein, to the great hinderance and disquieting thereof.

Reply to the Answer (T. Cartwright.).

What conscience is there that bindeth a man to depart from his living in that place where he liketh not of all the orders which are there used? Is it not enough to abstain from them if there be any evil in them, or to declare the unlawfulness of them, if his calling do suffer him, when as the reformation is not in his power? And, if, either of this abstaining, or declaration of this unlawfulness of them, troubles be moved, there is no more cause why they should give place, than the other which like of those disorders; yea, there is less cause, for that they are not the causes of trouble, but the other, and for that, by their departure out of their places, room is made for those which will like of those disorders, which the other misliked; which is to the hurt of that company or congregation in such places.

Defence of the Answer (J. Whitgift.)

If he be sworn to keep those orders keeping his living, if as honest men as he is will like of them, if his equals, or rather betters, might supply his place, I think he ought either to satisfy his oath, or to refuse his living, if he will avoid perjury; yea, though there were no such meet persons to succeed him. But, if the case be this, that a man shall directly swear, either to do such a thing by such a time, or to leave his place, if by that time he neither do the thing by oath required, nor leave his place, but still usurp the same, at the least the space of five years, I think he ought to be displaced for perjury; which is a greater matter than either cap or surplice. I do but now put a case, that men may understand every man that is displaced not to be displaced without great and urgent occasion. I would not enter into this vein, if I were not urged. Therefore, to answer in one word for all, I have put no man out of his living, but there is greater cause why he should be ashamed to complain of injury, than I to do according to my oath and duty.

Reply to the Answer (T. Cartwright.).

And, as for M. Doctor’s easiness to depart from his living, rather than he would cause any trouble, he giveth men great cause to doubt of, which, having divers great livings, and amongst them a benefice, is very loth to go from troubling of others, to do his duty at any of them. It is true that the church of England may have an order, whereunto it may justly require the subscription of the ministers in England. And so is it likewise untrue that we desire that every one should have his own fancy, and live as him listeth, for we also desire an uniform order, but such, and in such sort, as we have before declared. As for the old accusation of anabaptism and confusion, it is answered before; therefore, according to my promise, I will leave your words, and, if you have any matter, I will speak to that.

Defence of the Answer (J. Whitgift.)

This was objected and answered before: God knoweth my heart; and I am ready to give mine account, when I am thereunto by order called. Orders you will admit, but such as pleaseth you, that is, you will be in order, if you may do what you list.

×

×

Attribution

Transcribed and edited by Ollie Lansdowne for New Whitchurch Press.

Works consulted

John Whitgift, Works [Vol. 3] (1853), Edited by John Ayre, Cambridge: Parker Society